A HISTORY OF DIVISION 36 (PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION)
MARY E. REUDER
Division 36 of the American Psychological Association (APA) had its origins in 1946 with the founding ofthe American Catholic Psychological Association (ACPA). This organization, in rum, outgrew its original objec tives and underwent a total reorganization in 1970, with a complete change in purpose, membership, and locus. The original aims of the association were twofold: U( 1) to bring psychology to Catholics and (2) to bring a Catholic viewpoint to psychology" (Bier, 1975)---especiaUy by encouraging the reaching ofpsychology in CatholiccoUeges and by encouraging Catholics to obtain PhOs in psychology. Thus was born plRJ (Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues), From its inception, and partly with strategic intent, PIRl's bylaw structure, membership requirements, and objecrives were mcxl· e1ed on those for an APA division. This provided a smooth organizational transition to division StatuS once the hurdle of obtaining acceptance by the APA Council of Representatives was accomplisl1ed. In 1976 PIRl became Division 36. Although those who joined PIRI and its officers and committee members were all fully conversant with the divisional title, the rest of the world was apparently not. The acronym PrRI and its fuU title "Psychologists
The author is detoply inck:bu~d 10 Sam JonI3Jl of the APA for her eXI~nsive help in C13<;:kin8 do"Tl the vanOIA elIrly presidentJ and their (emu of office.
9/ Interested in Religious Issues" was more and more frequently "explained" to others as, "Oh, that's the division of psychology of religion." In 1993, by an overwhelming vote, the membership changed its name to Psychology of Religion. In preparing the more detailed history that follows, the question of origins arose: Should I start at 1946 with ACPA or 1976 with Division 36 PIRl? The APA national office raised a similar problem when it requested a historical list of the names of the division's past presidents for a plaque celebrating the Golden Anniversary of Divisions in 1996. The executive committee of the division decided to stan with ACPA. As one member of the committee put it, 'That is our history, so be it!" Thus, this history likewise will begin with a discussion of ACPA.1
AMERICAN CATHOLIC PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 1946-1970
In today's milieu, it is hard to imagine the intellectual climate of 1946, particularly the Zeitgeist surrounding psychologists, religion, and psychol ogy-especially in the world of Catholic intellectuaJs.! Catholic scholars working in the field of psychology, especially members of the APA, were few in number and relatively isolated from each other. Among Catholic groups, there was a strong "Catholic ghetto" mentality. In most Catholic schools and colleges, psychology was viewed as either a branch of philosophy (the study of the soul) or of education (the study of child behavior or principles of learning). There was much intellectual hostility toward the relatively new behavioral-scientific discipline with its emphasis on objective methods of investigation and on observable behavior. This negativism was reinforced by the srrong impact that logical positivism had on all science of the era. The hostility toward psychology was a two-way street shared both by those antithetical to religion and by many clergy and lay people, including persons of prominence. This atmosphere was especially well de scribed in detail in Sexton (1986). In 1946, during the APA convention in Philadelphia (Bier, 1975), a small group of Catholic scholars discussed at length the need for and desir ability of a Catholic psychological organization. The discussion ended, as it so often does among scholars. with the conclusion that more information was needed. A committee was appointed to gather names of prospective members. During the following year a list was compiled and a letter of
'MOM 0( {he informauon (or !he hl.\lOry of ACPA and the e3r1y PIRI wa!I obtained from B,er (]97S) and &xton (1986). lThis section is a revlSlOO af Reuder (1997).
92 MARY E. REUDER invitation sent to nil those listed by William C. Bier, then a graduate student at the Catholic University ofAmerica. One hundred ten persons responded to the inviHltion fO anend a luncheon meeting in Dcuoit held concurrentl~' with the APA convention. It was chere that commiltnent emerged. Over whelmingly ic was agreed that the organization was needed. A comminee was appointed, he~lded by Bier. This committee worked throughout the following yem (0 produce a constit'ution. nlU:~ the membership of this committee can be viewl..-d as the official "founders" ofthe ACPA.ln addition to Bier they were, in the Chicago area, Charles!. Doyle, Loyola University, and Walter L. Wilkins. Notre Dame; in the Detroit :lrea, Alcxander A. Schneiders, University of Detroit and Sister M"T)', Marygrove Cllllcge; in Canada, Roger Philip, Queens Univcr.;ity, and Lawrence T. l)ahaw, Univer sity ofOuawa; in the New York .. rea, Joseph F. Kubis and Richard T, Zegers, Fordham University; llnd in .he Washington, DC. area, Jllhn W. Swfford and Gertrude M. Reiman, Catholic University of America. These persons and those who held thc office llfpresidclH Ihroughoulthc years (sec T.. hle 4·1) were among the srnlw
TABLE 4·1 Presidents 01 the American Catholic Psychological Association (ACPA) and Predivisional Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues (PIRI) ACPA Years Presidents Years Presidents 1949-1950 Roger Philip 1959-1960 Raymond McCall 1950-1951 John W. StaHord 1960-1961 William C. Cottle 1951-1952 Joseph Kubis 1961-1962 Joseph G. Keegan 1952-1953 Alexander Schneiders 1962-1963 John M. E9an 1953-1954 Char1es Curran 1963-1964 Thomas N. McCarthy 1954-1955 Vincent Herr 1964-1965 Virginia Staudt Sexton 1955-1956 William A. Kelly 1965-1966 John J. Cribbln 1956-1957 TImothy J. Gannon 1966-1967 Paul D'Arcy 1957-1958 Magda Amold 1967-1968 Waller J. Coville 1958-1959 Salvatore G. DIMlchael 1968-1969 Paul J. Centi 1969-1970 Robert T. Lennon PIAl 1970-1971 John V. Dondero 1973 1974 Sheridan P. McCabe 1971-1972 Vytautas Bleliauskas 1974-1975 William C. Bier 1972-1973 Louis B. Gaffney 1975-1976 Eugene Kennedy
f\ ,·f/STORY OF DIVISION 36 93 a PhD fim"-prevailed. Underlying the debate was a fear that the new organization might tum into a separatist interest group of Catholics in the field of psychology. reinforcing a then~current inferior mentality. By making membership in ACPA contingent on prior membership in the APA, integra tion of participants into the mainstream of the discipline was ensured. This membership requitement was retained when ACPA was reorganized into PIR!. One primary objective of the ACPA was the elevation of psychology to a legitimate curricular area within many Catholiceducational institutions. As previously noted, there was a widespread tendency to consider psychology as a minor aspect of philosophy or education. Even where psychology depart ments existed, the reaching faculty was all too often drawn from persons trained in other disciplines. By making APA membership a prerequisite for membership in ACPA and by holding annual meetings in conjunction with the APA conventions, these teaching faculties were far more likely to be drawn into the mainStream of psychology. A second objective, critical for establishing ACPA as a truly profes sional organization rather than a parochial social group. was an emphasis on establishing scholarly programs. These included formal paper sessions as well as publications, including a newsletter. the proceedings of symposia. and ultimately a journal, The Catholic PsychologU:a1 Record. The symposia were papers originating at the annual meetings. After the first volume, Pe-rceprion in PTesent~Da"j Psychology (l956), all of the papers were joint presentations with various APA divisions and listed in the APA program. The newslener, from the very beginning. contained a significant book review section, reports on the meetings of the APA hoard of directors, and brief scholarly anicles.ln this regard. the activi.ties ofthe ACPA were practically identical to those of many APA divisions. Membership in the ACPA grew slowly and steadily until it reached a peak of 764 in 1967, after which a grd.dual decline set in. By 1974 membership was down to 516. Clearly, a serious situation had to be faced. As early as 1966 a committee had been established to analyze the situation and to make recommendations. It was eminently clear that one of the primary objectives in founding the ACPA had been fully met and was no longer of special relevance: The Catholic educational institutions by this time had practically all established psychology departments staffed by psy' chologists. Psychologists who happened 1:0 be Catholic did nOt necessarily feel any need for a denominational association. The scholarly products of the ACPA were oriented far more at general and religious issues in psychol ogy than at specifically Catholic ones. And SO the conclusion was reached: Either disband or reorganiz.e with a different mandate. After extensive and exhaustive debate, a vote ofthe membership fully supported reorganization.
94 MARY E. REVDER PSYCHOLOOISTS INTERESTED IN RELIGIOUS ISSUES, 1970-1976
In 1968 then ACPA president Paul Cenri chaired a comminee to do the restructuring. The Zeitgeist was quite different (rom the 1946 ern. Ecumenism \\las in the air. and psychologists who cared 300m religious issues were clearly a special interest group. Thus a key feature ofthe reorganization was to eliminate the word "Catholic" from both the title and rhe statement ofpurpose. The new focus was interest in rhe psychology ofreligious issues theoretical, research, and applied. It was hoped that this more broad-based objective would attract non-Catholic interest in religious issues. In the fall of 1969 ACPA members approved by mail ballot a reconstitution of the organiz:nion as PIRI, and the steps to reincorpor A HISTORY OF DIVISION 36 95 Council. The petition was initially accepted by voice vote. However, the next item on the Council agenda was a vote on a proposed division of international cooperation in psychology, which was rejected. Following this, the PIRI petition was "reconsidered" and rejected by a hand vote. Such an action on a petition for divisional status was to that date unprecedented, With concerted effort on the pan of PIRI members and especially Sexton, the petition was resubmitted in August of 1975, and this time met with approval. With its acceptance, the organizing of PIRl proceeded to develop a fonnal objective, set ofbylaws, criteria for membership, officers, and change ofstatus as a full-fledged division of the APA with an official founding date of 1976. DIVISION 36, 1976 TO PRESENT The tone of the transition period during which PIRI developed into Division 36 was set by Eugene Kennedy. Kennedy was detennined that the new division be in keeping with the mainstream of psychology. As the transition president, he played a strong role in shaping the nature of the early programs at the convention and in establishing the fonnal structure of the new division. During this time, bylaws were formulated and adopted, elections were held, and Sexton was elected as the first president of the division. The choice of Sexton was a recognition of the leadership, work, and dynamism that she brought to the entire process of establishing the division. Her tenth anniversary address (1986) and various notations, men tions, and asides in early PIRl documents reveal that she and Bier were primarily responsible for the success in bringing about divisional status, although many others also contributed. The stated purpose of PIRI prior to its becoming Division 36 was modified in the new bylaws. The new version described the purpose to be "(a) to encourage and accelerate research, theory and practice in the psychology of religion and related areas; and (b) to facilitate the dissemina tion ofdata on religious and allied issues, and the integration of these data with current psychological research theory and practice" (n.d.). Of the 2J presidents of Division 36 to the date of this writing (see Table 4-2 for a fulllisr), 22 were still alive and responded to written requests for information for this history. At a round table of past presidents held at the 1997 meeting of the APA, at least six of the 15 present indicated that their involvement with Division 36 was in one way or another tied to the effortS of Sexton. The collection of reminiscences obtained at this symposium also provided addi tional substantive information for this present history. 96 MARY E. REUDER TABLE 4-2 Presidents of Division 36 (PIAl) PIAl Years Presidents Years Presidents 197G-19n Virginia Staudt Sexton 1984-1985 Sheridan P. McCabe 1977-1978 Vytautas Biellauskas 1985-1986 Bernard Spilka 1978-1979 Eileen Gavin 1986-1987 Richard Kahoe 1979-1980 Paul J. CenU 1967-1988 Mary E. Reuder 198D-1981 Orlo Strunk Jr. 1988-1989 Hendrika Vande Kemp 1981-1982 E. Mar\( Slam 1989-1990 Constance Nelson 1982-1963 H. Newton Maloney 1990-1991 Richard Gorsuch 1983-1984 Mary Jo Meadow 1991-1992 Ralph W. Hood Psychology of Religion 1992-1993 Raymond F. Paloutzian 1995-1996 Carole Ann Rayburn 1993-1994 Edward Shalranske 1996-1997 Kenneth Pargamenl 1994-1995 John A. TIsdale 1997-1998 David Wulff 1998-1999 Siang-Yang Tan Along with irs primary concern with religion as a psychological variable in all of its aspects, Division 36 has also had to deal with a number of tangential factors which often readily arouse emotional reaction. One of these has been the matter of membership requirements and qualifications. Another consists ofelhical or mordl positions on matters wherein individual members have legitimately diffcrent and oftcn opposite positions. MEMBERSHIP Membership issues seem to have been a constant concern for every president of the division. The issues fall into three categorics: Increasing rhe size of the membership, increasing the diversity of the membership, and certain consequences of requiring APA membership as a prerequisite for membership in the division. As with the presidents of most divisions. neurly every Division 36 presidcnt since its inception has been concerned whh one or morc of these membership issues. Adding to the problem has been the difficulry of establishing a complete membership list because the APA does nOt maintain files on those divisional associate or studcnt members who do not belong 10 the APA itself. For small divisions without their own offices, maintaining such databases has often been a problem. Membership numbers, however, have been only one concern. Diversity of membership has been of equal importance, given rhe division's origins in a Catholic association. From the beginning, Vytauras Bieliauskas and A HISTORY OF OrVIS/ON 36 97 Eileen Gavin made diversity ofmembership a primary focus oftheirpresiden cles. Most subsequent presidents have also kept this issue on their agenda and attempted CO recruit from as broad an ecumenical base as possible. However, to date there has been little success beyond the various groups from the Judeo-Christian aadition. As membership grew and broadened, tension arose. The psychological homogeneity among founding members based on "interest in religious issues" did not extend to religious preferences or background. Initially, there was serious concern about the fact that most of the newly elected leadership of the division was from a Catholic background-a logical consequence of its origins. Realizing this, successive presidents, as noted previously, went to great efforr to expand the membership to as many and as diversely qualified individuals as possible. It is interesting to note that as membership grew and broadened, a new tension arose-a latem fear that the division was being dominated by Christians of an exrreme fundamental position, a fear often inferred from the pattern of individuals elected as officers or representa tives. When subsequent elections provided a more diverse group of leaders, the anxiety that diversity might disintegrate into divisiveness subsided. At the present time, as already noted, a more major concern is that of trying to extend the membership base to include persons of non-Judea-Christian background. On this, there is general agreement. The third type of membership issue for the division is definitional stemming from the criteria for membership. A5 noted previously, Division 36 has from its beginnings required APA membership as a prerequisite for divisional membership status. A relatively recent division by the APA Council of Representatives has raised a new basis for concern. The Council voted to allow non-APA members ofa division to be designated as members of that division. For divisions that had originated as organizations outside ofthe APA and incorporated for a variety ofdiverse purposes, such a change was both meaningful and desirable. For Division 36, it has posed a dilemma. With religion as a focus, the opening up offull membership, including voting and officership privileges, to all comers would put Division 36 at risk of being dominated by persons untrained in psychology who are primarily concerned with religion for its own sake. From its origins in ACPA, Division 36 has clearly stated its identity as a group of psychologists who have a common interest in one or more facets of the variable of religion. The criterion of prerequisite APA membership was established CO maintain that idenrity. Division 36 continues co extend affiliate status, which provides limited voting rights, but lacks eligibility for office to interested persons without APA membership who mayor may nOt be psychologists. In recent years, however. a certain number of Division 36 members have dropped their APA membership as a way of protesting certain policy positions taken by the APA Council of Representatives. The policy of 98 MARY f. REUDER denying these individuals full membership (although retaining affiliate sta tus) has been reviewed repeatedly by the Division 36 executive committee. The potential danger in changing the membership requiremem, given the possibility of a full slate of officers and executive committee members (with thc exception of the Council representMivc) has consistcntly led to a deci sion nOt to change these requirements. A minOT factoT affecting the decision was the pragmatic fact that if such changes in membership requirements were made, the division would have to set up a procedure not only for eStablishing new requirements but also a clerical mech;:mism for screening. enforcing, and establishing OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS Within the terms of office ofeach division president, various practical problems, social issues, and concerns relevllm to the division's purpose have arisen. For many years, major decisions were arrived at either by executive cOlllmittee meetings (initiillly held twice a year) or by telephone conference calls. The following sequential listing of the memories of past presidents reflecrs a pattern of the major concerns of the division. During rhe transition period, Kennedy. as pan of his e£fons to keep the new division in line with mainstream psychology, established PIRI's first major award, the William james Award for "recognition of outstanding and sustained contribution through publication and professional activity in basic research and theory in the psycholOb'Y of religiun and related areas" (Wulff, 1998). Although the award was originally presented annu:tll~', a dearth of qualified candidates has led the executive commincl.' to change the timing. Since 1997 the award has been given every J years. A chronologi cal listing of these recipients can be found in Table 4-3. TIle next twO of the early presidents, Vytautus Bieliauskas and Eileen Gavin, were focllsed on the transition process from PIRll'o divisional Status. There was difficulty in geuing A HISTORY OF DIVISION 36 99 TABLE 4·3 Division 36 Award Recipients Years William James Award William C. Bier Award Outstanding Service Award 1976 Frank Kobler '9n Orlo Stronk 1978 None given 1979 Andre Godin 1980 William C. Bier (Posthumously) 1981 Walter Houston Clafi( 1982 Bernard Spilka Adrian Van Kaarn 1983 Merton Strommen Gary Collins 1984 Noel Mailloux James E. Royce 1985 Ralph Hood Paul Clement 1986 Richard Gorsuch Paul Pruyser 1987 Kenneth Pargament H. Newton Maloney Virginia Staudt Sexton 1986 C. Daniel Batson David Baken Margaret Donnelly 1989 Peler Benson Reuven Bulka Eileen Gavin 1990 Allen Bergin Hendrika Vande Kemp Sheridan P. McCabe 1991 Bruce Hunsberger David Wulff Paul Centi 1992 l. B. Brown Barry Ekstadl E. Mark Slem 1993 Benjamin Beit-HaJiahmi James W. Jones Constance Nelson 1994 Jim Fowler Don Capps Margaret Gorman 1995 Kalevi Tamminen John McOargh None given 1996 None given Ana Maria Rizzuto Mary E. Reuder 1997 K. Helmut Reich Edward Shalranske Bemard Spilka 1998 none given Peter HIli Vytautas Bieliauskas Years Mentoring Award Years Early Career Award 1996 Eileen Gavin 1997 Christopher Burris Ralph Hood 1998 Crystal Park Sheridan P. McCabe Mary E. Aeuder Virginia Staudt Sexton E. Marie. Stem 1997 Carole A. Raybum Allport. In lieu of a presidenrial address, Gavin held a roundtable of invited outside expertS from a wide range of religious backgrounds addressing the history of ideas in the psychology of religion (personal communication, August 20, 1997). These activities combined the goals of inviting diversity ofparticipation in Division 36 with that offocusing on matters ofsubstanrive intellectual content. Vytautas Bieliauskas's 1978 presidential address focused on a problem that is still unresolved in 1999-namely that although religion and psychology frequently use the same words, the meaning, context, and language of the same words are often srartlingly divergent. Controversial issues confronting the APA as a whole also penetrated divisional meetings. Of particular concern have been topics such as "cults" and "brainwashing." 100 MARY E. REUDER Although all of the officers and executive committee members were in agreement on the objectives of the division and the imponance ofweaving the division into the mainstream of the APA and psychology in general, there was a certain amount of disagreement about the means of achieving this. Orlo Strunk recalled his presidency as being characterized by an "anempt to discover ways of reducing me various barriers among those truly interested in the psychological understanding of religion-research academicians vs. applied clinicians; theoreticians vs. practitioners; faith· based workers vs. 'objective' scientists, etc." He has maintained that it is his "conviction that a comprehensive and authentic understanding of religious experience and behavior require a broad and inclusive kind of perspective (Strunk, personal communication, November 21, 1997). In this vein, Strunk invited the executive secretary of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors to panicipate in a workshop with division members at the APA meeting. In 1981-1982, during the presidency of E. Mark Stem, two events with long-range implications occurred (Stem, personal communication, October 18, 1997). First was establishing a logo for PIRI. The logo was characterhed by a seal configuration with a central figure ofthe Greek letter psi. The "wings" of the psi were in the fonn of two "praying hands." This logo was used continuously until 1997. The second action was that of establishing the William C. Bier Award (see Table 4~3), created to recognize work in the psychology ofreligion that was more applied than that recognized by the William James Award. More formally, the award was described as recognition of "individuals who have made an outstanding contribution through writing and professional activity to the dissemination of findings in religious and allied issues and who have made a notable contribution to the integration of these findings with those of other disciplines, notably philosophy, sociology and anthropoIO!,'Y" (Wulff. 1998). The award is ordi· narHy given each year. From the beginning, various divisional presidents established task forces to devote anention to specific issues. Some of these were more long lasting and productive than others. Among the more productive was the review of psychology textbooks, both introductory and advanced, to determine the presence or absence of the topic of psychology of religion. Bernard Spilka's work (Camp & Spilka, 1981; Spilka, Amaro, Wright, & Davis, 1981) on religion in introductory textbooks is particularly germane. One tangible outcome of this work was a publisher's invitation to Ralph Hood (personal communication, October 10, 1997) to prepare material on the psychology of religion for inclusion in a textbook on personality. Other issues for task forces were abortion and the postabortion syn drome; religion and family issues; religion and long-term carej and religious issues in graduate education and clinical training. Work in the lauer area A HISTORY OF DIVISION 36 101 led to the APA publication Religion and the Clinical Practice of Psychology, edited by Edw.,-d Shafrnnske (1996). Because Division 36 is the only APA division with a major focus on religion, it is often the locus of anemion when religious issues dominate the world at large. Thus the executive committee and a number of task forces frequently face requests to join amicus briefs or to take strong positions on such matters as cults, brainwashing, and abortion. These pressures brought to the fore a need to decide whether or not the division should take an activist position on such controversial (and highly emQ(ional) issues. Taking into account the fact that despite disclaimers, thedivision could be perceived as representing the APA and the fact that there is a wide internal range of views within its own membership, the division has to date taken the position that its individual members are free to act as they choose but that the division itself would take no official policy stand on such issues. The latter, however, refers to oven official policy. There have been innumerable task forces and convention program presentations on such issues and heated executive committee meetings on issues such as cults, abortions, AIDS, sexual preferences, etc., and their various implications for a variety of ethi~ cal positions. Tight budgeting constrnints have existed from the beginning, and all presidents have gone to great lengths to minimize expenses. When mid year meetings became tOO costly and unfeasible on a totally volunteer basis (for trnvel and other personal COSts), they were replaced by mid-year conference-call meetings. When those calls became too costly for the magni tude and urgency of the given agendas, these tOO were dropped, except for emergencies. One amusing attempt at economy, however, led to resistance. When Bernard Spilka was president. he decided to save money on stationery by making the letterhead generic. By eliminating all of the listing of the names of officers, task force and committee heads, and so forth, the same stationery could be used from year to year-and presumably thereby save on printing costs. This logic failed to take into account the mct that for many persons and despite the existence of directories, these letterhead listings were widely used as directory sources. The uproar led to resumption of the listings the following year. A more successful product of Spilka's regime was the preparation of an information pamphlet to be used in the solicitation of new members. It stressed the breadth of interests and concern with religion that drew members together into the division. Richard Kahoe's tenn ofoffice as president marked the creation of the third major divisional award. The Distinguished Service Award was designed to recognize "individuals who have made an outstanding conttibution to Division 36 through service and leadership (Wulff, 1998; see also Table 4 3). Kahoe also helped further the practice ofrelating the activities ofDivision 102 MARY E. REUDER 36 to that of orher divisions by presenting a paper on the psychology of religion on the APA program of Division 24 (Kahoe, 1986). His special concern was "the psychological implications of our religious theologies or beliefs." On leaving office, Kahoe left behind a memento for all future presidents. A hand~caf\'ed gavel, which he made, has become a treasured symbol of officer transition with the division. Each year it is handed over from one successor to the next. The presidency of Mary Reuder coincided with the highly painful, contentious APA "reorganization" crisis. Although reorganization had been simmering for years, it was at this time that votes were taken and decisions made. The proposed APA reorganization models all contained an element that would have divided the division's membership and possibly led to the destruction of the division itself. The various plans all required a division to declare primary affiliation with one of a number of designated groups. These groups tended to cluster either around practice and application of psychology or around academic and scientific research. Because the member ship is heavily divided between these tWO approaches, and both are clearly articulated in the stated goals of the bylaws, there was no way in which Division 36 could fmd a role in the proposed organizational structures. This same issue has continued to haunt the division since its inception. Despite a rigorous attempt to balance its image within the APA, and despite concern to have the divisional share of the convention program be divided into scientific and theoretical as well as clinical aspects of the psychology of religion, Division 36 finds itself constantly being subtly classified as a "prac~ tice" division. Likewise, despite concerted attempts, it has not had a ready welcome by the "science" divisions, although in recent years a number of these have sponsored programs on religious issues. Hendrika Vande Kemp recalled that during her presidency she spent an exorbitant amount of time on the telephone working with individuals on the "Richardson amicus brief" problem (haVing to do with brainwashing; 1997). Once the APA itself refused to become involved in court cases involVing cults and brainwashing, the pressure on Division 36 to rake a particular stance multiplied. Another concern that arose during her term was an invitation for Division 36 to join a coalition of practice divisions. The executive committee expressed no interest. However, as of 1999, there is still a tendency for Division 36 to be classified as a "practice division." This despite the fact that a review of its presidents (see Table 4~2) indicates that most were or have been primarily academic in orientation. During this period Raymond Paloutzian brought to the executive com mittee an invitation to produce a guest issue of the Journal of Socia/Issues. This was subsequently produced by coeditors Paloutzian and Lee Kirkpatrick as "Religious Inferences on Personal and Societal Well-Being" (995). At A HISTORY OF DIVISION 36 103 the same time, two policies were set with respect to the newsletter-. reaffirmation not to accept advertising and a decision fO set the term of the editOr at 5 years. Noting that basic problems never disappear, Constance Nelson (per· sonal communication, August 28, 1997) said she remembers spending a lot of time on the telephone trying to reactivate members during her presidency. She was impressed by the diversity among members, viewing it as a major divisional strength. During her presidency, major issues of concern were abortion and repressed memory. During the presidency of Richard Gorsuch, the division conducted one ofits most successful workshops, "Psychology's Response to the Religious Client" (1991). It should also be noted that in 1986 Gorsuch was invited to write a chapter on the psychology of religion for the Annual Review of Ps)·cholngy. Ralph Hood, who succeeded him was, as previously noted, highly successful in furthering the ongoing effort co get the variable of religion into textbooks of psychology. By the time that Palouuian's (personal communication, July 20, 1997) (enn had arrived, the issue of the name of the division had again come [0 the fore. Over and over, when asked the meaning of the acronym PIRI, members would hurriedly reply, "Oh, that's psychology ofreligion." It should be noted that great care was taken not to include the word "the" in the title to avoid suggesting singularity in point ofview. The need to constantly protect the diversity of orientation has been a continuing divisional guideline. The issues of Edward Shafranske's tenure as president were heavily directed toward task forces (personal communication, July 12, 1997), those already in place and in new endeavors. Shafranske, Palouuian, and Peter Hill established a task force on continuing education and subsequently also a workshop on the same topic. John Tisdale's leadership was nOt confined to his presidency. In 1989 he led a Workshop for Divisional Secretaries at the APA Leadership Conference. He recalled (personal communication, July 21, 1997) his presidential term as largely one of housekeeping and a continuation of the task Forces and committee activities established by his predecessors. He also cosponsored an article in "Religious Issues in Personal and Societal Well~Being" edited by Palouuian and Kirkpatrick, thereby continuing the Division 36 pattern of cooperating with other groups in scholarly endeavor. It was also Tisdale who, in his preSidential address, stressed the fact that, as noted previously, the new name of the division was "Psychology of Religion" and not "THE" Psychology of Religion, again a reemphasis of the division's concern for diversity. Prior to her presidency, Carole Rayburn had been the first and only division liaison with Division 35 (Psychology of Women) and Division 36. 104 MARY E. REUDER Despite differences in their mutual goals, bmh divisions have had coliSted APA program sessions for years. During her presidency, Rayburn continued offering annual symposia on women and the psychology of religion. She also spent much time focusing on bringing more women and minorities into the governance Structure of the division. Probably the most long-lasting achievement of her presidency was creating the Mentoring Award. This award recognizes individuals who were especially notable for enhancing the development of leadership of others in the division. The initial recipients were Eileen Gavin, Ralph Hood, Sheridan P. McCabe, Mary E. Reuder, Virginia Staudt Sexton, and E. Mark Stern. The next year President Kenneth Pargament (personal communica tion, 1997) designated Carole Rayburn for the award. In addition, the executive committee, in recognition of her exceptional role in shepherding the division from its early beginnings, voted to change the name of the award to the Virginia Staudt Sexton Mentoring Award. Two more awards were created under Pargament's leadership. One was an award for early career research contribution to the psychology of religioni the other, a seed grant for research in the psychology of religion. The seed-grant award has been given only once, in 1997 to Mark S. Rye and W. Paul Williamson. The first awardee ofthe Early Career Research Grant, subsequently renamed the Gorman Award, was presented to Christopher Burris in 1997. It went to Crystal Park in 1998. It was also during Pargament's regime that the division finally settled on a new logo. For a number of years, various individu als had complained about the "praying hands" in the old logo. Yct committec after committee had failed to arrive at a new version. Even a "contest" with a published monetary prize drew no effective response. Finally. the executive committee, pressed by the APA 50th Anniversary of Divisions Committee decided to simply change the "hands" in the original to the ordinary letter psi and to retain the reSt of the logo ali it was. This logo came into use in 1997. During Pargament's term it was also of note that rwo of the three most pressing issues have been with the division since its inception. The problem of how religious issues should be approached in clinical training has long been simmering and appears to have come to a head with Shafranske's previously noted 1996 book. The need for more empirical research in the psychology of religion and its dissemination (0 the discipline in general remains a conStant concern. An issue that has come into recent focus, the queStion of the role of spirituality in the psychology of religion, has also become a matter of increasing interest, involvement, and concern. The election of the year in which Pargamcm was chosen proouced a procedural problem for which the bylaws made no provision. One of the candidates died after balloting had been completed. There was immediate confusion about what to do if the deceased candidate had won. Fortunately, A HISTORY OF D/V/SION 36 105 TABLE 4-4 Division 36 Secretary-Treasurers or Secretaries and Treasurers Years Secretary-Treasurers 1975-1976 Vytaulas BlelJauskas 1976-1982 Margaret Dorlnelly 1982-1985 Mary Ann Siderits 1985-1988 Hendrlka Vande Kemp 1988-1989 John Tisdale Years Secretary Years Treasurer 1989-1991 John Tisdale 1989-1992 Eileen Gavin 1991-1994 Margaret Gorman 1992-1998 Beverly McCallister 1994-1997 Slang-Yang Tan 1998- DoMe Goetz 1997- Nancy Thurston no decision was required as Paq,'3ment had the majoriry vote. The situation, however, showed the need (or clarification of the bylaws to cover this problem area-tO appoint the alternate candidate or to hold a new election. Throughout its hinory, the division has been able to maintain its continuity and scability largely through the services or its secrecary treasurers, secretaries, and treasurers (listed in Table 4·4), nnd it's Newsbmer editors (see Table 4·5). TIley h TABLE 4·5 Division 36 Newsletter Editors Dates Edllors Dales Editors 1978-1979 W1Jllam A. Bany 1985-1988 Kenneth Pargament 1979-1980 E. Marlt Stem 1988-1993 Edward Shalranske 1980-1983 Mary Jo Meadow 1993-1997 Peler Hill 1983-1985 Richard Kahoe 1997- Marlt Kreje! 106 MARY E. REUDER CONCLUSION Thus in 1998 Division 36 has continued to grow and advance and also to face many unresolved problems. It bas gained increased respect and stature within the APA structure, even though an "antireligion" element still exists. The division has consistently maintained a membership loyal enough in its vO(ing (0 retain one or two APA Council representatives. It has remained ecumenical and avoided domination by any single religious viewpoint. And it has consistendy and increasingly continued to contribute substantive, scholarly presentations at the annual meetings. Still to be conquered are the problems of recruiting membership from other than Judeo-Christian groups; the tendency of others to classify Division 36 as a "practice" division; the unavailability ofa databank to which to refer students who wish to specialize in psychology of religion; and the ever-present diffi culty (common to many divisions) of involVing a greater percentage of its members in divisional activities. REFERENCES Bieliauskas, V. (978). Decoding the langtWge of PS}choloC and religion: Glossolalia, attribution or translation. Paper presented at me meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August 2S-September t. Bier, W. C. (1975). PIRl-BrUlge between the ACPA and the APA DiviJion 36. Presidential address, meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chi cago, August. By-Laws. (1969). Psychologisrs Interested in Religious Issues. Camp, G., & Spilka, B. (1981). Faith and behavior: Religions in introductory psyclwlogy U!,xu of the 1950's and 1970's. (Unpublished manuscript) Kahoe, R. D. (1986, August). "Religious Issues" Facing Theory and Philosophy. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Paloutzian, R., & Kirkpatrick, L. (Eds.). (1995). Religious influences on personal and societal well-being. Jou.rnal of Social Issu.es, 51 (2). Reuder, M. E. (1997). Notes on the origins of Division 36-lrs beginnings in the American Catholic Psychological Association. Ps}chology ofReligion Newsletter, (Winter-Spring), 11-12. Sexton, V. S. (986). Mess.1ge on the tenth anniversary of PIRL Psycho/ogisu Interested in Religious Issues Newsleuer (Fall), I. Shafranske, E. (Ed.). (1996) Religion and the clinical practice ofpsycholoc. Washing ton, DC: American Psychological Association. Spilka, B. (986). Suggestions for an informational pamphlet on Division 36. (Unpublished manuscript). A HISTORY OF DNIS10N 36 107 Spilka, B., Amaro, A., Wright, G., & Davis, J. (1981). Tht. treatment of religion in current psychology U!xu. Paper prese:med at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. August. Wulff, D. (1998). Mcnorandum defining DitJision 36 awards. Paper present~ to meeting ofDivision 36 executive committee, American Psychological Associa tion meeting, August 17, San Francisco. J08 MARY E. REUDER